"He had breasts. Not large ones. Small breasts, like a flat-chested woman temporarily swollen with milk. Then with his red beard, his face of a sunburnt forty-five-year-old man, stern-visaged, long-nosed, thin-lipped, he began to nurse. The baby stopped wailing and sucked greedily." -Marge Piercy, from "Woman on the Edge of Time" (p. 134)

19 December 2006

CAN WE DECLARE COLIN POWELL "TO THE LEFT" OF HARRY REID?

Alexander Cockburn certainly thinks so. How about the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Are they "to the left" of Harry Reid? Gordon Smith? At this point? The response on Daily Kos would like to have it both ways: 1) explaining that Harry Reid's remarks are being taken out of context, for indeed Reid does want to see a plan for withdrawal, and 2) being solidly antiwar. Daily Kos commentator Kagro X explains:

Following incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's statement that he'd "go along with" a "surge" in troop strength in Iraq, but only if it was as a part of a plan for withdrawal, reaction against the surge plan was widespread and strong. But it has since prompted strenuous defenses of Reid that insist the Senator's approval was taken out of context.

I'm here to tell you this: Harry Reid's statement was indeed taken out of context.

Unfortunately, I do not believe the full context does anything to redeem it.

The "part of a plan" alibi won't work. Kos bloggers like delphine should not be fooled. The Administration has no plan, except for the "Salvador option" that has created the current mess. An increase now is not, and will not be, part of a withdrawal plan because plans change. Bush will take Reid's endorsement, run with it, and when the time is ripe, tell the world that "the plan has changed," as if Bush were the villain in a James Bond movie and Reid were one of his subordinates. Elite Democrats are clever at keeping unpopular wars going, at least as clever as elite Republicans if not more so.